[AL]
Please use "Reply All" instead of reply to ensure your message is on the
public-list.
Normally I just return private email that looks as though it might have
been intended
for the public-list, but in this case I'm reposting myself as I can't
imagine it was
really intended to be private. (I rarely reply to private email).
-----Original Message-----
From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 4:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Democracy Bill
One (1) electorate?!?
Gee the AEC doesn't even use computers yet (Hence 2 weeks to get some
results)
How about looking at the Tasmanian system. Hare-Clarke. Electorate of
5,
7 and a max of 9 members. Results within 2% of electorates wishies
(perhaps
even closer)
The mathematics of ONE electorate for 148 seats are horrendous, and
would
be no more accurate than the Hare- Clarke system.
David Brooks.
If you do not own enough of this planet to support yourself
And you cannot support yourself without this planet
Who is it who supports you?
[AL]
This is a very important policy issue. Unlike many others, it is one on
which
Neither will need to actually adopt a clear policy, one way or another.
The delay of 2 weeks is due to that time limit set in legislation for
arrival of
postal and absentee votes etc. The AEC does use computers and it is now
quite feasible to
count votes under any system, however complicated, as quickly as
desired.
Hare-Clarke was partly designed with a view to minimizing the
difficulties of manually
counting ballot papers, but that is no longer a relevant issue. The
"mathematics" of 148
seats are not a problem. (Hare's original proposal was for a single
electorate with
600 seats in the British House of Commons).
Other issues are a problem with 148 seats e.g.:
1. The method of marking ballot papers with possibly thousands of
candidates.
Even with 148-256 candidates direct numbering is impractical so measures
to
reduce the number of "nohoper" candidates are irrelevant to solving the
problem.
Hence my proposal for "ticket" voting but with anyone able to register a
ticket
and ballot papers on which any registered ticket number can be marked.
2. The role of MHRs as "local ombudsman".
This traditional defence of single member electorates can be adequately
answered
along the lines of existing literature from Electoral Reform societies
and needs
little special consideration in relation to 148 seats as opposed to 5-9.
(European parliaments that are much larger are elected on PR with
national lists).
3. Tasmania's current constitutional entitlement to a minimum of 5
representatives.
Would complicate things if not for the fact that the campaign would be
in conjunction
with demands for "real" constitutional change cf phoney republic anyway.
If we adopt a policy for "direct election by the people of the
Commonwealth voting as
one electorate" we will have to deal with the above obstacles. In
addition we will
have to deal with two other objections that are more political and less
"technical".
4. The quota of 1/149 would enable candidates with less than 0.7%
support to be elected.
This in fact is the point of the proposal. With 9 seats per electorate
the quota would
be 10% and you would still essentially have a two party system - One
Nation might win
1 seat in a few of the 9 member electorates because it has a strong
regional concentration,
so it has more than 10% in some places even though having 8% overall.
The Democrats probably would not and the Greens certainly could not, as
they are not so regionally concentrated, let alone anybody smaller.
There would be little encouragement for the existing major parties to
fragment as a faction big enough to hope to get seats by separating
would be at least a quarter of the support of the ALP or Coalition
anyway.
(Realignments and changes in voting patterns over time are the more
interesting
consequence of PR, rather than the immediate change in numbers for each
existing party).
It is simply not true that 5-9 member electorates lead to results within
2% of the electorates
wishes. What is true is that in a two party system the current situation
in which 1 party
has a majority of (preferential) votes and the other a majority of seats
is less likely
to occur, especially if there is a margin of more than 2% in the
majority of votes, but
it still can occur. Parties with 2% or even 4% of the votes, like the
Greens, simply
won't get represented at all, so that is not within 2% of the
electorates wishes outside
a two party context.
The assumption that PR would need to be based on 5-9 member electoral
divisions may be
an explanation for the Greens not putting up much of a fight for it -
they would not
actually gain any representation even if they won.
Even with State wide electorates, the largest State - NSW with 50 seats
would have a
quota of 2% so the Greens would only just scrape in with 1
representative among 148.
(They get into the Senate on ALP surplus preferences)
Democrats with 5% could expect 2 in NSW, 1 in VIC, 1 in QLD, probably
zero elsewhere.
(Precise estimates should really be based on Senate figures for each
state, and take account
of surplus transfers etc but would still only be estimates since actual
voting patterns would change anyway).
Both Greens and Democrats have more influence on policy through
preference deals and threats than they would get through this
representation.
With a single national electorate, even Unity with 0.76% would get 1
representative (important
to get them to campaign as they have contact with many ethnic groups
familiar with PR in other countries). Greens 3, Others 4-5(?), Democrats
7-8, One Nation about 12. ALP or Coalition
would form minority government with actual debates about policy in
Parliament.
5. Voting would essentially be for parties rather than for individual
candidates,
as a consequence of any feasible solution to problem 1.
My view is that is the case already and is both desirable and inevitable
in a modern
industrial society. However the Hare-Clarke with tickets form of PR I
propose ensures that voters are not bound by the decisions of party
machines in voting for candidates. Anyone can register a "ticket" and
tickets with different orders of preferences would be registered by
party factions, single issue groups, "local" candidates etc etc.
Hare-Clarke (as used in the Senate and in Tasmania) is the method of
Proportional Representation normally used in English speaking countries.
In Australian Senate elections it is combined
with "party ticket voting" so that voters who support a registered party
ticket can save time
marking their ballot papers. This does not change the underlying method
of counting the votes.
Various forms of List voting are used for PR in Europe, with voters
indicating their support
for 1 or other party List in a similar way to the top half of a Senate
ballot paper. The variations on this are important, but the main
principle is that each party gets a percentage of the seats
approximately the same as it's percentage of the votes. These seats are
then allocated to the candidates on the party list starting from the top
of the list and working down.
The results would be more or less equivalent to Hare-Clarke Senate
voting if:
a) Every voter voted for a registered ticket (instead of 95% doing so)
b) Each ticket listed only the candidates of 1 party with no overlap
between tickets.
c) Instead of distributing surpluses over the quota achieved by the
lowest candidate
elected on a party ticket to other parties, and successively
transferring the votes of
the candidates with the least support to other candidates until as many
quotas were filled
as the number of places, the quota was set to the level at which all
seats would be filled.
The advantage of the List system is that it is very easy to count and
understand and does represent each party proportionately to it's
support. It has never been popular in English speaking countries because
it is definately a system of voting for parties contrary to the
Westminster tradition of voting for individual candidates.
The advantage of Hare-Clarke is that it does not require a) and b)
above. Voters can
support lists of candidates that differ from those issued by party
machines. The more
complicated method of counting (c) is no longer relevant and difficulty
in understanding
the concept is less of a problem in Australia because it is already used
for the Senate.
We can describe it as "just like the Senate - but for the whole of
Australia and with
anyone able to register a ticket - not just the parties".
If literally "anyone" did register tickets, ticket numbers might need to
be 7 digits
long like phone numbers, which would be a nuisance for advertizing in
campaign literature
and for filling in ballot papers - but not unfeasible.
In practice a requirement for a reasonable number of signatures to
register a "public" ticket
could cut the number down to less than 10,000 - as with the total number
of candidates
so 4 digit ticket numbers could be used in campaign literature and for
marking on ballot papers.
A stronger requirement could qualify tickets for 3 digit numbers and a
certain number
of the most popular tickets could have separate names and boxes printed
on the ballot paper
(say 25 - corresponding to the 4% requirement for public campaign
funding or the 4% cutoff
for representation in Germany - considered by other European countries a
serious limitation against "extremists" justified only by Germany's Nazi
past).
Individuals could (anonymously) register 7 or 8 digit tickets if they
were fanatical about
not following any group's ticket. The "real" campaign would be between
the 25 most popular tickets and the "fringe" campaigns would advocate
support for 3 or 4 digit ticket numbers
published on campaign literature.
All tickets would be available through the internet. (At present the
Senate registered
party tickets are not readily available but 95% vote for them - not even
knowing that they
may actually be "split" 2 or 3 ways).
Trouble with all this of course is that it's far too "new" to be
explained easily.
But 5-9 member electorates or even State wide are no solution as they
leave the
two party state intact.
One Nation may prefer 5-9 seat electorates to become "the" third party.
But they haven't
a hope of getting it. Only real possibility of change would be from
general desire for
end to two party system. Nobody else will campaign for something that
only benefits One Nation.
An interesting feature of the current situation is that Coalition could
face overwhelming
defeat and very long term opposition at the end of this Parliament. They
actually have a
motive to introduce PR to INCREASE the number of seats they are likely
to have after next
election AND to fragment ALP support in same way that they have already
been fragmented.
This really is the most favourable time in Australian history to
introduce PR.
Other factors include decline of support for bipartisans to below 80%,
recent
change in NZ, impending referendum in Britain, and above all crisis of
self-confidence
in Parliament if they are knocked down on republic referendum.
